I don't understand...

[aiki]

1.) Have you ever used Google translate and lets say put the words into polish then Spanish then back into English and the words are not the same as the original. Ya. Thats the bible.

See, it is stuff like this that reveals how out of your depth you are. WHat you describe above is nothing like the process by which the Bible was translated into English (or any other language, for that matter). This may come as a surprise to you, but the Bible was translated by Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic scholars centuries before Google existed.

2.) The bible is not historical at all. Simple Google and found this on a religious site on that Hittites thing. gci(Remove).org/bible/torah/hittites

LOL! Simply saying the Bible isn't historical doesn't actually make it so. In fact, the Bible is very historically accurate. Consider the following article:

"The Archaeological Evidence for the Bible is Non-Existent!" - Probe Ministries

3.)What?

Apparently, you are not aware of the fulfilled prophecies of Scripture. As I have already recommended, do some research.

4.)Thats because of the christian crusades who basically killed everyone not Christian

Apparently, you know little of this matter, too. In point of fact, the first Crusade was a response to the military aggression of Muslims and their persecution of Christian pilgrims journeying to Jerusalem. In any case, the Crusades have virtually nothing to do with the wide circulation of the Bible. It wasn't even printed for public consumption until the 1500s (AD) which was long after the Crusades had ended.

5.)As you said yourself. Numbers dont count.

Sheer numbers don't alone count as proof of the truth of a thing. However, I didn't suggest that they did. What I said was that millions of people have found the truth of the Bible to be transformative. Nothing more. This is suggestive to me of the divine origin of the Bible, but it is by no means, by itself, a knock-down proof of it. Keep in mind, however, that subjective experience should not be totally discounted as evidence of the truth of a particular thing.

The ToE is not seriously flawed. It makes a lot of sense. You should pick up a science book more often.

I would take this advice more to heart if it didn't come from someone so totally incapable of cogently answering criticisms of the ToE.

Jeez you should read your own bible too. Leviticus 20:13

Does this verse tell me to put homosexuals to death? It most certainly does not. Do you know to whom this command was originally given? Christianity would not exist until centuries after this command was issued, so it was not a command for them to follow. But you would know this if you had anything but the shallowest familiarity with Christianity and the Bible.

I have more examples of the bible telling you to kill people if you wanna see it.

Not a single one from the New Testament, which is where Christianity begins.

It even says to kill me. An atheist

So confident and yet so ignorant.

Selah.

 

[aiki]

You do but that does not make it reasonable, only when we have objectively studied against our own arguments can we say, what I have come to hold as reasonable is sound.

And how do you know that I haven't "studied against my own arguments"? In fact, I have over many years dealt with a wide spectrum of attacks on my beliefs from atheists. As a consequence, I know my beliefs are well-founded, and reasonable - and defensible. Can you say the same for your beliefs?

Selah.

 

[paul becke]

These three Oxford professors beg to differ:

Oxford profs respond to and refute new atheist claims | Uncommon Descent

 

[chrisstavrous]

These three Oxford professors beg to differ:

Oxford profs respond to and refute new atheist claims | Uncommon Descent

I am not a atheist but I will click on that link right now.

 

[Snake75]

Not a single one from the New Testament, which is where Christianity begins.

Selah.

So, your saying the whole old testament should not be taken as truth?

 

[LastSeven]

So, your saying the whole old testament should not be taken as truth?

Wow. Really? Do you even read and consider the responses other people give you or do you just scan the words for something that you might be able to attack?

Every time you throw out an attack somebody not only refutes your statements but completely obliterates them and you just continue to ignore the mounting evidence of your own ignorance.

You really have a lot of maturation (not to mention research) to do before you are as capable a debater as you seem to think you are. Let me give you a hint: A sign of maturity is being able to admit you were wrong, and you've been proven wrong a lot here in this thread but have conceded nothing.

If you're smart you'll try to remember everything people are telling you here so that next time you come to debate a believer you won't be so ignorant about the facts and you won't come across as such an immature little warmonger.

 

[chrisstavrous]

And how do you know that I haven't "studied against my own arguments"? In fact, I have over many years dealt with a wide spectrum of attacks on my beliefs from atheists. As a consequence, I know my beliefs are well-founded, and reasonable - and defensible. Can you say the same for your beliefs?

Selah.

Yes I can say I have, but my reasons in not trusting the bible as truth/fact is not a matter of faith its a matter of logic. For example if I am told a story of a man who built a boat and put two of every living/clean animal onto that boat, then after a global flood he let all the animals go. From this point I am told to trust this story in faith because its written in a book god inspired. But what if instead I use logic and reason to see if the story is trustworthy. Now since you have critically done this and believe its true then can you tell me how the story of noah is possible logically.

 

[Snake75]

I will admit the only person that I having difficulties with is aiki. Everyone else has been giving pointless post. So, I'm done for now.

 

[Johnnz]

Yes I can say I have, but my reasons in not trusting the bible as truth/fact is not a matter of faith its a matter of logic. For example if I am told a story of a man who built a boat and put two of every living/clean animal onto that boat, then after a global flood he let all the animals go. From this point I am told to trust this story in faith because its written in a book god inspired. But what if instead I use logic and reason to see if the story is trustworthy. Now since you have critically done this and believe its true then can you tell me how the story of noah is possible logically.

Uninformed dogmatism is tiring.

Faith and logic are not mutually exclusive. Aristotle, whose viewpoint has largely been adopted as a basis for scientific investigation limited logic to what does not change ie the laws or 'stuff' of matter. He recognized pure logic was not relevant to the non material, as with his own beliefs about the gods.

As in any collection of literature we need to interpret it according to its genre (poetry is not history, history is not science for example) authorial intent, theme, style and cultural context. You seen unaware of such factors, as well as the well founded rejection of 'scientific objectivity' that has been around for around a half century. You have a faith basis to your beliefs too. Are you aware of that?

John
NZ

 

[aiki]

Yes I can say I have, but my reasons in not trusting the bible as truth/fact is not a matter of faith its a matter of logic. For example if I am told a story of a man who built a boat and put two of every living/clean animal onto that boat, then after a global flood he let all the animals go. From this point I am told to trust this story in faith because its written in a book god inspired. But what if instead I use logic and reason to see if the story is trustworthy. Now since you have critically done this and believe its true then can you tell me how the story of noah is possible logically.

Before I even begin to try to answer your question here I would like to know just how open you are to being persuaded to a different point of view. It seems to me from what you've posted here so far that I could produce extensive responses to your question only to have you dismiss it all out of hand in allegiance to your present bias against the faith. I have had this experience before and am loathe to have it again.

For starters, you might want to consider the following article:

How Could All the Animals Get On Board Noah's Ark?

Selah.

 

[oi_antz]

I will admit the only person that I having difficulties with is aiki. Everyone else has been giving pointless post. So, I'm done for now.

Did you get what you came for?

 

[Snake75]

Did you get what you came for?

I came to try and understand Christianity. I still don't understand it. So many contradictions.

 

[Snake75]

Before I even begin to try to answer your question here I would like to know just how open you are to being persuaded to a different point of view. It seems to me from what you've posted here so far that I could produce extensive responses to your question only to have you dismiss it all out of hand in allegiance to your present bias against the faith. I have had this experience before and am loathe to have it again.

For starters, you might want to consider the following article:

(Removed link because I cant post)

Selah.

I was gonna stop posting. But, then you bring up Noah which is COMPLETELY a children's story.

First, a boat that big will NEVER float.

This articles fails to account all the food which is needed for the animals.

All plant life would have died because of the mixture of salt and freshwater.

Most marine animals would die from said above.

Most creationist say the ark landed somewhere in Asia or Middle East. So, how come no fossils of kangaroos (which are only found in Australia) found anywhere but Australia?

I could go on about the BS about Noah's Ark.

 

[oi_antz]

I came to try and understand Christianity. I still don't understand it. So many contradictions.

Who is contradicting who, and why does that impact your understanding?

 

[LastSeven]

A couple of us have already explained some of his supposed contradictions, but he refuses to accept reasonable explanations. I'm sure even if we gave reasonable explanations for every single item on his list on page 2 he still would not be satisfied.

 

[oi_antz]

A couple of us have already explained some of his supposed contradictions, but he refuses to accept reasonable explanations. I'm sure even if we gave reasonable explanations for every single item on his list on page 2 he still would not be satisfied.

I don't think they are his contradictions though. I would like to know who he thinks is contradicting who, whether it be authors of parts of the bible, or Christians who say things that seem to contradict what other Christians say. I am asking him by the way. I did ask you a question in this post, which I would quite like to get a response to, for OP's benefit as well as mine.

 

[Snake75]

Who is contradicting who, and why does that impact your understanding?

This is basically my final thoughts after this whole thread. It just doesnt make sense.


If God existed, then why does he not show us this 'light' Or show us that he exists? Can he not do it? If so, god is not omnipotent. If he can, but doesn't, he is not omnibenevolent. If he doesn't know how to, he is not omniscient. If god showed himself to everyone in the world, then what would be the point of doing something bad? You would go to hell and suffer forever, thus he cannot be omnibenevolent.

 

[oi_antz]

This is basically my final thoughts after this whole thread. It just doesnt make sense.


If God existed, then why does he not show us this 'light' Or show us that he exists? Can he not do it? If so, god is not omnipotent. If he can, but doesn't, he is not omnibenevolent. If he doesn't know how to, he is not omniscient. If god showed himself to everyone in the world, then what would be the point of doing something bad? You would go to hell and suffer forever, thus he cannot be omnibenevolent.

Who told you that He is omnibenevolent? (I'm not even sure what this means to you actually. Do you think He should be preventing every thing that we do that has a bad consequence?).

 

[aiki]

I was gonna stop posting. But, then you bring up Noah which is COMPLETELY a children's story.

I didn't bring it up; Chrisstavrous did.

First, a boat that big will NEVER float.

Oh? How do you know this? Are you a marine engineer?

This articles fails to account all the food which is needed for the animals.

It wasn't intended to give a careful accounting of all that one could say about the Noah story. I offered it as a an example of how blindly dismissive of the biblical Flood account some people are even when they know they are both ignorant of the facts and unreasonably biased against it.

All plant life would have died because of the mixture of salt and freshwater.

"But what about the fish and other marine creatures? Obviously, they weren't taken on board the Ark. How could they survive, particularly both fresh and salt water forms? As a matter of fact, most of them didn't survive. Over 95 percent of all fossils are marine creatures. They died, and are fossilized, by the trillions. Many are buried in great fossil graveyards, tightly packed together, choked with sediments, buried before they had time to decay. Obviously, they didn't live in the environment in which they died. But how could any have survived?

In the complex of events and conditions that made up the Flood, certainly there were pockets of fresh and/or clean water at any one time. Remember, it was raining in torrents, and we can expect that the rain was fairly fresh water. Many studies have shown that waters of various temperatures, chemistries, and sediment loads do not tend to mix; they tend to remain segregated into zones. It would be unlikely for any one area to retain such zones for very long during the tumult of the Flood, but on a worldwide scale, some such segregated zones would have existed at any given time. Furthermore, we don't know the tolerance levels of pre-Flood fish for sediment, salt, and temperature. Modern fish have a great variety of responses to different environments. Perhaps before the Flood, fish were even more adaptable.

There is also the possibility that great amounts of vegetation were dislodged from the pre-Flood continents and remained intertwined during the Flood as floating mats. Many creationists suspect that the decay and abrasion of these mats are responsible for our major coal seams, but underneath these mats, the turbulence of the surface would have been lessened. Perhaps many fish found shelter and nutrition under them, as insects may have, on the mats themselves.

Even though there is much we don't know about what went on during the Flood, we can see that there is at least a plausible answer that can be proposed to such questions." Dr. John Morris

Most marine animals would die from said above.

Possibly.

Most creationist say the ark landed somewhere in Asia or Middle East. So, how come no fossils of kangaroos (which are only found in Australia) found anywhere but Australia?

What makes you think kangaroos existed in the time of Noah? Why could they not have adapted over time into their present form after the Flood?

I could go on about the BS about Noah's Ark.

No, that's fine. I've had quite enough of your BS (baloney sandwich ) about Noah's Ark. Feel free to stop.

Selah.

 

[Lollerskates]

I didn't bring it up; Chrisstavrous did.

Oh? How do you know this? Are you a marine engineer?
/quote]

You beat me to it. I am a physicist by trade. Gopher wood is one of the strongest, yet least dense wood. What does that mean? Gopher wood, with its very low density will float in a deluge much better than, say oak. God knew what He was talking about when He told Noah to use gopher wood.

And, since Noah was 600+ years old, that "wood" would have been more or less metal in strength, and wood in density. So, if for example heavenly waters come to destroy the earth, Noah would have been more than capable of surviving.

And, let us not forget Noah had 120 years to build this ocean-liner. It wasn't like Noah built an arc in one day. He warned people while building it, but they scoffed at him, and ridiculed him because they felt like he was ridiculous. Same stuff, different day: nothing is new under the sun.

I bet if I said God told me there was a great furnace coming, and we need to get on this "thing" to be saved, I would be met by ridicule - until that first drop of fire befalls the people. This is what Noah went through; 120 of ridicule whilst building a life-saving ark that most all people ignored (because, technology, science and medicine were gods of those people - arbiters of truth.)

Look at the movie "Evan Almighty." That shows you the social consciousness of the mass majority of people. They believe what they are programmed to believe - until that first raindrop happens. So sad, all that time wasted. So far, Nineveh was one of the only nations to learn their lesson, and repent for their sins. This world could care less about a God/Most High because most are so arrogant to think their fleeting knowledge of science trumps the graces and blessings of God.